4 ms·

Please define 'catastrophe' and/or point to the real 'gravest threat'.

by getonit 16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.
- getonit 16y ago
  Given that there is nothing wrong with the science and the fact that mankind can't even manage to stop the smaller-scale climate change that we thought we'd have to face, I fail to see how something like thawing permafrost - which will make the problem much worse, much quicker - can possibly be described as something other than a catastrophe. Does catastrophe mean something else to you, or are you suggesting it'll all work out before we get to a catastrophe? (The next questions, as I'm sure you'll be able to guess, are what you think will happen to save us from ourselves, and when we can expect it).
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Not relevant, really, to the point I was making. Terrorism is a modern threat; but I am sure you'll agree that when governments describe it as "hanging over us" and "the greatest threat we face today" you would agree that is silly, over dramatic and unhelpful to address the problem (because it's only real effect is to make some people afraid). Another example; the bird flu "pandemic" that never was. This is an identical problem. Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. When I say "there is nothing wrong with the science" please do not misinterpret that as "I think all of climate science is accurate". We are still at the stage of developing understanding - specifically on how to stop climate change and how much it will affect the planet and in what ways. Even worse, don't misinterpret "there is nothing wrong with the science" as "I agree with the conclusion he draws from the combined science papers". It's not a very well put together conclusion, but that doesn't matter for his purposes. In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I will stop off at my allotment tonight to pick up food for the evening, and will add another solar panel to my roof in spring (funds permitting). What will happen to save us from ourselves? Us of course. Many of the scare monger bloggers are hypocrites; the action here has to start at home. They are just in it for the politics, hence calling BS on them :) What are YOU doing to address the problem? That is the question we should ask.
    - getonit 16y ago
      To compare the impact of climate change to the impact of terrorism, you must factor in how many people are affected. They are not comparable. > Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. We disagree about mankind's ability to sort things out, apparently. The question of labels depends on that opinion - If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. > In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action How is your martian cave? ;) > ...and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever. I don't believe democracy is effective (better than the alternatives we've come up with, but it's still two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch). The only option open to us is spreading awareness, IMHO - government action is the only thing that can make a difference, and governments will only act when they have to. Our current polite pressuring are not nearly enough, apparently.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        They are not comparable. Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger) If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstanding of social psychology (or, actually, a careful manipulation of it, depending on your point of view, to score political points). You will get people involved and "on the issue". But they will be scared, under-informed and simply polarize for or against. Which has lead to the current inaction posturing and political point winning. This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact. The only option open to us is spreading awareness, On this I agree. However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace. Mostly because it has exactly the opposite affect the the stated aims - you are on the bandwagon of politics for whom this could rumble on nicely for the next thirty years, useful for all manner of things. The correct way to do this is by educating people, by starting businesses to encourage local consumption (veg box services, for example), showing them how to save money and energy (there is a scheme here to have free solar panels, but no one ever new about it), how to pressure local govt. for change (recently we got through some leading local legislation to lay the ground work to encourage all new builds to have solar heating). We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement. So, hence, rubbish blogs like this are in it for politics and scaremongering and are damaging.

Please define 'catastrophe' and/or point to the real 'gravest threat'.

by getonit 16y ago

Please define 'catastrophe' and/or point to the real 'gravest threat'.

ErrantX 16y ago

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.

getonit 16y ago
Given that there is nothing wrong with the science and the fact that mankind can't even manage to stop the smaller-scale climate change that we thought we'd have to face, I fail to see how something like thawing permafrost - which will make the problem much worse, much quicker - can possibly be described as something other than a catastrophe. Does catastrophe mean something else to you, or are you suggesting it'll all work out before we get to a catastrophe? (The next questions, as I'm sure you'll be able to guess, are what you think will happen to save us from ourselves, and when we can expect it).
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Not relevant, really, to the point I was making. Terrorism is a modern threat; but I am sure you'll agree that when governments describe it as "hanging over us" and "the greatest threat we face today" you would agree that is silly, over dramatic and unhelpful to address the problem (because it's only real effect is to make some people afraid). Another example; the bird flu "pandemic" that never was. This is an identical problem. Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. When I say "there is nothing wrong with the science" please do not misinterpret that as "I think all of climate science is accurate". We are still at the stage of developing understanding - specifically on how to stop climate change and how much it will affect the planet and in what ways. Even worse, don't misinterpret "there is nothing wrong with the science" as "I agree with the conclusion he draws from the combined science papers". It's not a very well put together conclusion, but that doesn't matter for his purposes. In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I will stop off at my allotment tonight to pick up food for the evening, and will add another solar panel to my roof in spring (funds permitting). What will happen to save us from ourselves? Us of course. Many of the scare monger bloggers are hypocrites; the action here has to start at home. They are just in it for the politics, hence calling BS on them :) What are YOU doing to address the problem? That is the question we should ask.
  - getonit 16y ago
    To compare the impact of climate change to the impact of terrorism, you must factor in how many people are affected. They are not comparable. > Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. We disagree about mankind's ability to sort things out, apparently. The question of labels depends on that opinion - If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. > In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action How is your martian cave? ;) > ...and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever. I don't believe democracy is effective (better than the alternatives we've come up with, but it's still two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch). The only option open to us is spreading awareness, IMHO - government action is the only thing that can make a difference, and governments will only act when they have to. Our current polite pressuring are not nearly enough, apparently.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      They are not comparable. Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger) If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstanding of social psychology (or, actually, a careful manipulation of it, depending on your point of view, to score political points). You will get people involved and "on the issue". But they will be scared, under-informed and simply polarize for or against. Which has lead to the current inaction posturing and political point winning. This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact. The only option open to us is spreading awareness, On this I agree. However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace. Mostly because it has exactly the opposite affect the the stated aims - you are on the bandwagon of politics for whom this could rumble on nicely for the next thirty years, useful for all manner of things. The correct way to do this is by educating people, by starting businesses to encourage local consumption (veg box services, for example), showing them how to save money and energy (there is a scheme here to have free solar panels, but no one ever new about it), how to pressure local govt. for change (recently we got through some leading local legislation to lay the ground work to encourage all new builds to have solar heating). We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement. So, hence, rubbish blogs like this are in it for politics and scaremongering and are damaging.